Some Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Technical Efficiency—The Example of European Union Agriculture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor
Thank you for choosing me to review this manuscript” Some theoretical and practical aspects of technical efficiency - the example of EU agriculture”
The authors conducted this research to estimate the average technical efficiency of agriculture in the European Union countries and to differentiate its level according to the economic size classes of farms.
The manuscript is devoted to an interesting, though neither new, nor original problem. The author has done a lot of work, and from this point of view, the work is worthy of publication.
1. Abstract is to long please consider rewriting it according to the journal format (200 words maximum)
2. Don’t use abbreviations in the abstract and the title
3. In line 25 “in particular in sectors where, in addition to economic goals” uncomplete sentence
4. Please replace old references by latest ones. At least 75% of the references of a modern manuscript should be between 2018-2022. Check your references.
5. Materials section have all the sufficient information
6. Author clearly showed the results
7. The tables need to be reformatted
8. Figures are clear
9. You need to add a conclusion after the discussion section
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions and comments on my manuscript. Your comments were valuable - all of them were included in the second draft of the manuscript. They will also be a signpost in my future research.
I hope that in the current version you will recommend it for publication.
Yours faithfully
Kamila Radlinska
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The main objective of the article is to better understand the category of agricultural technical efficiency and how to measure it. To achieve this goal, empirical research was carried out, the subject of which was to estimate the average technical efficiency of agriculture in the European Union countries in the years 2004-2020. This manuscript is well organized, and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results. The paper was well written!
Lines 32 – 33: Please, arrange the keywords alphabetically.
Lines 75 – 81: The authors should well highlight their hypothesis and predictions.
Line 368: I think that you should other important references as examples to support your sentence: “agricultural policy aimed at supporting biodiversity”. I would like to suggest:
Russo, D., et al., (2018). Novel perspectives on bat insectivory highlight the value of this ecosystem service in farmland: Research frontiers and management implications. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 266, 31-38.
Lines 544 - 547: I think that you should other important references as examples to support your sentence: “It is worth noting that the common agricultural policy of the European Union focuses
its activities on creating conditions for food production with respect for natural resources of air, land and water, on multifunctional farms, ensuring biodiversity of flora and fauna with appropriate management of systemic fertilizers and plant protection products as well as antibiotics in animals breeding.”. I would like to suggest:
Cuadros‐Casanova, I., Cristiano, A., Biancolini, D., Cimatti, M., Sessa, A. A., Mendez Angarita, V. Y., ... & Di Marco, M. (2023). Opportunities and challenges for Common Agricultural Policy reform to support the European Green Deal. Conservation Biology, e14052.4
Mupepele, A. C., Bruelheide, H., Brühl, C., Dauber, J., Fenske, M., Freibauer, A., ... & Klein, A. M. (2021). Biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes: transformative societal changes needed. Trends in ecology & evolution, 36(12), 1067-1070.
Russo, D., Salinas-Ramos, V. B., Cistrone, L., Smeraldo, S., Bosso, L., & Ancillotto, L. (2021). Do we need to use bats as bioindicators?. Biology, 10(8), 693.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions and comments on my manuscript. Your comments were valuable - all of them were included in the second draft of the manuscript. They will also be a signpost in my future research.
The articles you suggested were interesting and found citations in my work and greatly expanded the context of my work. Unfortunately, I could not quote all the suggested articles, but I read them with curiosity.
I hope that in the current version you will recommend it for publication.
Yours faithfully
Kamila Radlinska
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research paper has clear research objectives and feasible technical methods, and the research results are of great significance for revealing the impact mechanisms of agricultural technical efficiency in European Union countries. Some suggestions for revision are as follows:
(1) It is recommended to further clarify the innovative aspects of this research in the introduction.
(2) The literature review in the paper is lengthy, and it is suggested to streamline the content.
(3) The evaluation index system proposed in the paper is crucial for the research results. The author needs to further explain the basis for selecting the indicators and the rationality of constructing the index system.
(4) Figures 1, 2, and 3 in the paper are not properly labeled. It is recommended to add corresponding titles to the horizontal and vertical axes of the figures.
(5) The discussion section of the paper is not sufficiently in-depth. It is suggested to strengthen the analysis of the uncertainties of the research results and improvements for future research in the discussion.
(6) In the references cited in the paper, less than 50% of them are from the past five years. It is recommended to supplement with the latest relevant research literature.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions and comments on my manuscript. Your comments were valuable - all of them were included in the second draft of the manuscript. They will also be a signpost in my future research.
I hope that in the current version you will recommend it for publication.
Yours faithfully
Kamila Radlinska
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I think that author picked a very interesting issue, but paper does not outline its importance for decision making and policy improvement. I have set of sugesstion:
In summary author stated: „... The technical efficiency of agriculture in the European Union was 18 estimated using the DEA method - the CCR-IO model - using the EMS programme. 1 output and 8 19 inputs were used to estimate the level of technical efficiency...“. When acronym is used for the first time then in bracket it is necessary to put full name of acronym and numbers from zero to nine should be written as a word, not as a number.
In summary it is necessary to add one sentence connecting empirical results and objective of research – „... to better understand the category of agricultural technical efficiency and how to measure it...“ and to provide recommendations.
In introduction, author outline „old“ business philosophy of profit maximisation. In order to reach SDG goals and to answer to global problems such as climate change the business practice and philosophy have to be changed especially in a way not to focus profit maximisation, but to find way to optimise profit, while contributing to sustainable development (eg carbon neutrality or ....) So, introduction have to be changed to adopt new business approach (profit optimisation) and to explain a role of technical efficiency in achieving sustainable development. When EU agriculture is discussed, it is necessary to mention a Green deal and to explain why this issue is important for achieving Green deal. Also, the role of agriculture in EU is defined by EU policies, especially Green deal. So, when you discuses a agriculture role you have to make references to main EU documents such as Green deal.
In introduction author is stating research results: „... During the study, the research hypotheses were verified: H1. Agriculture in the European Union countries is characterized by a high average level 81 of technical efficiency. H2. Agricultural activity concentrated in the segment of “very small” and “very large” 83 farms is characterized by higher technical efficiency...“. In introduction author have to explain why those hypothesis are relevant and how they are support achieving of research main objective: „...The main objective of the article is to better understand the category of agricultural 75 technical efficiency and how to measure it...“. It is not clear how those two hypothesis (or research questions) contribute to main research objective, especially to part „how to measure it“. So, author should first to redefine main research objective in a way to connect it with use of research results (why it is important to know about agricultural efficiency? Is it important for public policies, rural development plans or????). Second, author has to explain how that hypothesis contributes to main research objective – there is need to clearly connect hypothesis and main research objective. I suggest – not to present hypothesis in introduction, but in material and methods. In introduction it is important to present research question which will be clearly connected with research objective (eg What is position of pervious research on a technical efficiency importance and method to measure it?....)
In literature review, which is more theoretical definition of issue (efficiency), then literature review regarding the way how efficiency is measured, how it is interpreted and how it is used for decision making (both on the level of company or public policy). The structure of this part makes it hard to read and understand. There are some very superficial explanations like (paragraphs 186-188) „...Economies of scale illustrate the response of the level of production to a proportional increase in inputs. In the case of increasing economies of scale, the number of produced output grows relatively faster than the level of inputs, i.e. the unit production costs decrease...“. The cost of fixed capital are driving economy of scale effect, while technical and allocative efficiency is shaping those costs. So those explanation have to be clear and deep enough. I suggest to author to make scheme where factors driving both technical and allocative efficiency will be presented together with effect on business results (costs, outputs, social and environmental impact). This should be used to present methods to measure efficiency (both allocative and technical). So, this will help to author to escape trap of complex but superficial explanation of phenomena. For definition I suggest to make table in which different definitions and approaches will be given together with author who made it. In addition, method used cane be presented as well. Also literature should be enriched by new literature.
In addition the author use „... absolute measures, i.e. return on capital/assets, labour productivity...“. Those measures are relative numbers not absolute. So, this naming „absolute measure“ should be changed (or it has to be proved by set of literature).
Author is stating „.... In sectors such as agriculture, energy, banking, healthcare or education, the activities 225 of the facility must meet both economic and public goals. Enterprises and organizations 226 in these sectors must be primarily technically efficient, because it is the implementation of 227 public goals that often ensures and determines the level of implementation of economic 228 goals...“. This is very traditional approach. All companies, all economic activities have to contribute to SDG (to answer to global challenges). So, all companies have to balans economic, environmental and social goals. So this traditional narrative have to be changed.
The food sovereignty has to be mentioned especially in light of COVID 19.
The connection between technical efficiency food security, food sovereignty and quality of life have to be clearly explained in the light of EU CAP and especially Green deal. This part is the weakest point of paper. It is necessary to be elaborated to show why this phenomenon was, is and will be very important.
In method it is not clear why the DEA method, in accordance with the CCR-IO model were selected to be used. The reasons behind such decision should be mentioned. It is not clear how concept of technical efficiency correspond with stated assumption „... According to the assumptions of the common agricultural policy of the EU, the development of agriculture should take place through deintensification of inputs, implementation of environmental policies and principles of sustainable agriculture...“. How this research method provides results relevant to this assumption.
I suggest to author to make scheme of the research process – few stages of the process with clearly presented outputs and inputs.
The research results (level of TE) could be presented on geographical chart with numbers (average TE in this period) on the shape of countries.
In table one added column can be added – countries with lower TE than EU average for the year. Also it is important to know which country has the max TE – so addition column has to be added (Max TE). This will give better picture of ag performances according to countries.
The Figure 1. is just graph of data presented in table 1. So, this is just repetition and this should be changed. The structure of farms for the countries with the lowest TE can be presented instead of Number of effective objects TE=100
The figure 2. should be enriched by data with number of countries with TE lower then EU average.
Figure 3. have to be changed. The farm categories have to be lines, while yeas have to be presented as X axis.
In addition it will be very interesting to se structure of farms (according to economic size) for the countries which have the lowest TE (during whole period) and countries which has the highest TE (during the whole period) and EU average structure. Some statistical test to see the significance of such distribution can be done (hi square test for example). This will add to understanding.
Discussion has to be rewrite. It has to discuss results to provide interpretation and to connect results with main assumption of CAP and Green deal and to explain current capabilities of EU ag. to transform their activities toward „smart and green“ food system that ensures high quality of life. It has to include more arguments from literature. The conclusion and recommendation are missing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions and comments on my manuscript. Your comments were valuable - all of them were included in the second draft of the manuscript. They will also be a signpost in my future research.
I hope that in the current version you will recommend it for publication.
Yours faithfully
Kamila Radlinska
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
In this paper, the authors make in evidence of some aspects concerning technical efficiency in agriculture. This is a nice job because, in a few papers, I meet some comprehensive studies concerning the technical effectiveness of different agricultural systems in the EU. However, I have an issue. There is less discussion concerning diseases, pests, or weeds that can affect the technical effectiveness of agriculture. Maybe is better to cite some studies concerning the efficiency of plant protection in agriculture. Overall, I agree with the publication of this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions and comments on my manuscript. Your comments were valuable - all of them were included in the second draft of the manuscript. They will also be a signpost in my future research.
I hope that in the current version you will recommend it for publication.
Yours faithfully
Kamila Radlinska
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Now paper is well structured and message is clear.
Some minor changes are suggested:
Term „public goals“ should be changed into „social goals“
pp 60 – „...long term it led..“ The „long term“ should be changed by „log run“
pp 71 „...The main objective of the article is to better understand the category of technical ef- 71 efficiency of agricultural...“ – after agricultural add production or just put agriculture.
The effectiveness and efficiency are two different terms. So, it has to be used with caution. In the following paragraph this is not a case.
pp 76 „...Union countries is characterized by an effective transformation of inputs into outputs and whether the economic size...“ – instead effective use efficient
It is not easy to understand following sentences (pp. 562-571):
„...Agriculture in the European Union is characterized by a high level of technical efficiency. What contributed to the practice of financial support for agriculture and the promotion of highly effective technologies implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy. The experience of agriculture in highly developed EU countries shows that the intensive use of land for agricultural purposes has contributed to the improvement of the food situation, but has resulted in unfavourable changes in the natural environment, climate change, soil degradation and a reduction in the biodiversity of fauna and flora in the European Union. These observations lead to the general conclusion that intensive agriculture in the EU has increased technical productivity but has unsustainable ecosystems. Therefore, the debate against climate change is currently one of the most topical challenges of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy...“
Some terms should be changed (public goals into social goals) and some sentences are not clear - I put it in suggestion to authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your positive review report and comments. I have included all your comments in the text.
Kind regards,
Kamila Radlińska
Thank you again for reading my manuscript, the comments in reviews 1 and 2 were really valuable.
